On the 25. of MARCH, 1652. was the first meet­ing: The Result whereof followeth.

AFter prayer against Prejudicacies, and for the the Truth, and a solemn Protestation to en­deavour Truth not Victory: The Questi­ons being read by Dr. Chamberlen, and own­ed by Mr. Cranford to have been presented to him: It was thought good to fall upon the last first according to the first Letter: because it was a subject which had been formerly disputed of betwen Mr. Cranford and Mr. Rowley at one Mr. Williamsons, Mr. Chamberlen comming in accidentally, The Conclusion of [Page 2] the Dispute ended in this, That Mr. Cranford freely granted.

That, in Eclesia non constituta, or, male constituta: It was not onely lawfull for any Man but any Woman, or Mayd to preach the Gospell.

The Arguments then by Dr. Chamberlen having been from 1 Cor. 14.31. Where all might Prophesie one by one; and from Rom. 16.1. where Phebe is termed a Deaconesse of the Church of Cenchrea, and divers other places and instances, of Deborah and H [...]ldad, and 1 Cor. 11.5. Act. 21.9. Act. 18.26. Pilip 4.3. &c.

The Question sent was,

Whether Private Men, I mean Tradesmen, may Preach the Word of God without Ordination in the City of London?

But Mr. Cranford not liking of the Question in those termes, the Question altered by him was thus:

Whether Prvate Men or Tradesmen, may Preach the Word of God without Ordination?

Having propounded the Question, he explained it as fol­loweth.

That by, Private Men, he meant in reference to Station or Calling. And that sons of the Prophets might be Private Men, though Publick by Designation.

By Preach, he meant, to Expound and Apply, to Admonish, Exhort, Reprove.

Preaching is either Authoritative, or Charitative: Ordinarie, or Occasionaliter: Publice, or Private.

That is, Authoritatively, or in Charity: Ordinarily, or Oc­casionally: Publickly, or Privately. Whence he layd down this Thesis. That,

No Private Man, that intends not the Ministery, may Exhort, Admonish, Reprove, Authoritatively, Ordinarily and Publickly, in a true Church, without Ordination.

By Ordination, he meant Approbation, and Imposition of hands by the Preaching Presbyterie.

Candidati, may Preach severall times, and a considerable number of times for Approbation.

By Authoritatively, he meant in relation to Christ and Men.

Then Mr. Cranf. layd down these Theses.

He that is a Tradesman, and continues so, ought not to Preach the Word of God; not being Ordained.

Major, And being once Ordained, he ought not to Work.

By the change of the Question, and those severall limita­tions, restrictions, and distinctions, it was almost brought to what Dr. Chamb. might within a little have consented to. But upon these last Theses, Dr. Chamb. inferred this Minor following.

But Paul was a Tent-maker, and did continue so, not­withstanding his Preaching. Act. 18.1, 2, 3. and 20.34. and 1 Thes. 2.9.

Therefore Tradesmen Ordained Ministers, or Ordai­ned Ministers, may Work.

Mr. Cranf. answered, that though Paul might, it was not lawfull for other Ministers to Work.

But the Elders of Ephesus, (Act. 20.17.) ought to Work, Vers. 35.

Therefore Ministers Ordained, may Work.

There was no Answer by Negation, or Distinction, but a miscelaine of Discourses, therefore Dr. Chamb. proceeded as followeth:

If Paul being Ordained to Preach, and more priviledg­ed from Working then others, might Work, then others lesse privileged might work also.

But Paul being Ordained to Preach, and more privi­ledged from working then others might Work,

Therefore others lesse priviledged from Work, might Work also.

Mr. Cranf. affirmed, that Paul was not more priviledged from Work.

Dr. Chamb. proved it from 1 Cor. 9.6. Have not we power to forbear working, &c. The whole scope of the place is to set forth Paul and Barnabas's priviledge above Others.

[Page 4]

Which being denied by Mr. Cranf. Dr. Chamb. referred it to the Auditory.

Whereupon Mr. Cranf. affirmed, That the priviledge to Paul and Barnabas was not more, but was common to others. Dr. Chamb. then replied.

If Paul, who was like priviledged as others, might Work, then others might Work also.

Here Mr. Cranf. made a long discourse, in the close where­of, upon some words interposed by Dr. Chamb. Mr. Cranf. by way of consent affirmed, That whosoever hath an imme­diate Call by Christ, may Preach, any where without Or­dination.

They who are immediately called by Christ, may preach any where without Ordination.

But some Tradesmen are immediately called by Christ,

Therefore some Tradesmen may preach without Or­dination.

They who are immediately called by the Word of Christ, are immediately called by Christ.

But some Tradesmen are immediately called by the Word of Christ,

Therefore some Tradesmen are immediately called by Christ.

They who are gifted by the immediate reading of the Word of Christ, are immediately called by the Word of Christ:

But some Tradesmen are gifted by the immediate read­ing of the Word of Christ,

Therefore some Tradesmen are immediately called by the Word of Christ.

[Page 5]

All that are gifted are gifted by Christ, ( Ephesians. 4.8. 1 Peter 4.10.

But they that are gifted by the Word, are gifted.

Therefore they that are gifted by the Word are gifted by Christ. Rom. 1.12. and 1 Cor. 12. was also instanced.

Mr. Cranfords Answer was, that those gifts were limited to mens approbation, not to execution, till after approbation.

But after approbation they not onely may, but must Preach.

Which Dr. Chamb. referred to the Auditory, because it seemed to contradict what he hath formerly consented to: And seemes to set up the approbation of man above the gifts of God, and to oppose the Command of the Apostle, 1 Peter, 4.10.

On this Reference there was a Discourse between Mr. Cran. and Dr. Cham. Whereupon, on some Questions propounded by Mr Cranf. these following Particulars were agreed to and subscribed by Dr. Chamb.

In a true Church Organicall of Christ, it is not law­full for any man to Preach or Prophesie, Ordinarily in the ordinary sence, without Approbation and Imposition of hands, Nor at all unlesse it be in reference to the said Approbation and Imposition of hands. Except they have immediate infal­lible revelation.

Upon further discourse, Mr. Cranf. affirmed:

It was not lawfull for any out of Office to Prophesie.

Dr. Chamb. affirmed it was lawfull for any to Prophesie, (1 Cor. 14.31.) else the whole Church might be Officers.

Mr. Cranf. upon further proceedings said, That,

By Prophets, He meant such as had immediate inspiration.

By Teachers, Such as instructed others.

By Ordinary, What was in relation to endowments, or frequency.

That Revelation of Scripture he counted Ordinary.

That Ordinary Revelation was to the Conscience, Extraor­dinary to knowledge.

Immediate Revelation, was such as was to B [...]laa [...], Num. 23.

Immediate teaching was such [...] Judas from Christ.

And that was no Revelation that was either by preaching or reading.

Then Dr. Chamb. Instanced that of Peter; Mat. 16. Where Christ saith, Flesh and bloud hath not revealed this unto thee. And yet it was a thing that was ordinarily preached and known. So that the Devils could tell that he was the Son of God, Mark. 1.31. And it was declared at his birth Mat. 3.17. &c. And 1 Cor. 2.14. The naturall man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, &c.

Mr. Cranf. here would have distinguished upon the word Receiving, as different from knowledge, though the words following do in expresse termes say neither can he know them; For they are Spiritually discerned.

Therefore Dr Ch. affirmed, that knowledge to be extraordi­nary whensoever Scripture is revealed without mens teachings.

But Mr. Cranf. affirmed that extraordinary, was not by Scriptures, nor Spirit, but by Visions or Dreames. Which upon revew he mended, and said: Not onely by Scriptures and Spirit: But also by Visions and Dreames.

But this was the close of the first meeting, ending in Prayer.

The Second meeting at Mr. WEBB'S, was on the first of APRIL, 1652.

AFter Prayer and solemn Protestations, as before Dr. Chamb. having desired there might be no offence taken at the phrases of the Scripture which he should make use of in his Argu­ments.

They that are transformed as the Ministers of Righ­teousnesse; are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ:

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Mini­sters) are transformed as the Ministers of Righte­ousnesse,

Therefore the Ministers of London, (Presbyterian-Ministers) are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf. denyed the Minor, to wit, That the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are transformed as the Ministers of Righteousnesse.

They that are not formed as the Ministers of Righte­ousnesse are transformed as the Ministers of Righte­ousnesse.

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are not formed as the Ministers of Righteousnesse,

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Mi­nisters) are transformed as the Ministers of Righte­ousnesse.

They that are formed as the Ministers of Antichrist, are not formed as the Ministers of Jesus Christ,

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are formed as the Ministers of Antichrist.

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are not formed as the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

They that are Ordained as the Ministers of Antichrist, are formed as the Ministers of Antichrist,

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are Ordained as the Ministers of Antichrist,

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Mi­nisters) are formed as the Ministers of Antichrist.

They that are Ordained in the manner, succession, and power of Antichrist, are Ordained as the ministers of Antichrist:

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are Ordained in the manner, succession, and power of Antichrist,

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Mi­nisters are Ordained as the Ministers of Antichrist.

Mr. Cranf. denyed the Mi. Which containeth three Par­ticulars, and therefore three severall Series of Sylogismes.

First for the manner this Syllogisme was prepared.

They that are commonly required to have had their Education in Schooles, to be furnished with Antichri­stian [Page 9] Titles, to have Approbation from men of such Ti­tles, and sent from them, to be over a flock (often­times) whether the flock will or no: are Ordained in the manner of Antichrist. (For the Pope likewise di­spenseth sometimes with Education, and Titles, and some flocks are not unwilling to receive Antichri­stians.)

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are commonly required to have had their education in Schooles, to be furnished with Antichristian Titles, and approved by men of such Titles, and by them sent out to be over a flock (oftentimes) whether the flock will or no.

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Mi­nisters) are Ordained in the manner of Antichrist.

But the Succession was desired to be proved, and therefore the Syllogismes for that followeth.

They that have their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist, are Ordained in Succession of Antichrist:

But the Ministers of London (Presbiterian-Ministers) have their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist,

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Mi­nisters) are Ordained in the Succession of Anti­christ.

If they have it by Succession, and there were no other Succession but from Antichrist: then they have it by Succession from Antichrist.

But they had it by Succession, and there was no other Succession but from Antichrist.

Therefore they had their Ordination by succession from Antichrist.

Here Dr. Chamb. desired to expresse, that by Succession he meant publick Succession, allowed of by the Powers of the Nation: which Mr. Cranf. assented to, and denyed the Mi.

They that had their Ordination from the Bishops, had their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist.

[Page 10]

But the Ministers of London (Prsbyterian-Ministers) had their Ordination from the Bishops,

Therefore they had it by Succession from Antichrist.

Here the Dispute grew into some disorder, but the thing to be proved was they that had their Ordination from Bishops, had it from Antichrist. As thus,

If Bishops themselves had their Ordination from Anti­christ, then they that had their Ordination from Bi­shops, had their Ordination by Succession from Anti­christ.

But Bishops themselves had their Ordination from An­tichrist,

Therefore they that had their Ordination from Bishops had their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist.

If from Rome, then from Antichrist.

But from Rome,

Therefore from Antichrist.

If from Rome since Antichrist was An­tichrist, then if from Rome, then from Antichrist:

But from Rome since Antichrist was Antichrist,

Therefore if from Rome, then from Antichrist.

Here Mr. Cranf. made a long digression concerning the Church of Rome, and a Church in Rom [...]: and said, That

1 The Church of Rome was a true Church, till our separa­tion from it.

2 The Pope of Rome was Antichrist these thousand yeares.

3 A true Church in Rome till this day.

Which when Dr. Chamb. read over, there were exceptions taken, that he had not read as Mr Cranf. spake. For they af­firmed he said, there might be a true Church in Rome till this day; Nempe Fidelium,

So Dr. Chamb. formed a Syllogisme against it.

That Church which hath not the true Signes and seales of a true Church, is no true Church,

But the Church of Rome hath not the true signes and seales of a true Church.

[Page 11]

Therefore it is no true Church.

Mr, Cranf. said you would faine draw me to believe it, but you shall not draw me to it with Horses. The Church of Rome might be a true Church, though full of Errours: as a man may be a true man, though full of sores and Ulcers. And though the Church were Erroneous, yet the Ordination might be true. As many other things may be true which the Church of Rome did hold. And that Ordination was not Antichristi­an, till Protestants separated from them.

Dr. Chamb. then said, they separated from a true Church: and so the separation made it false.

Mr. Cranf. said, they separated from them, when they be­gan to be false.

Dr. Chamb. offered to prove, they were not yet separated from them.

If you did separate, then either you did separate from their Doctrine or their Power.

But you did separate from neither,

Therefore you did not separate.

The complaint was that now the Question was lost, and they were gone to new Questions. So Dr. Chamb. returned to the Question thus.

If no other publick Ordination but from the Pope since separation, then from Antichrist by your own con­fession.

But no Ordination but from the Pope.

Therefore from Antichrist.

Mr. Cranf. said, The Church of Rome was a true Church still. But because Mr. Cranf. in his discourse did either let fall sometimes what he would not owne, or Dr. Chamb. was sup­posed to mistake what Mr. Cranf. spake, it was desired that Mr. Cranf. woud write down his own Words, and Positions, which he did, as followeth.

1 The Church of Rome was once a true Church of Christ.

2 In the Church of Rome there happened many corruptions in Doctrine.

3 The Bishop of Rome, sometimes a true Minister of the Church, usurping a universal power over all Churches, became Antichrist.

[Page 12]4 After his usurpation, there wanted not many (both Bi­shops and other Teachers) that opposed this usurpation of the Pope till the Protestants departed from it.

5 There remained, oppressed by the Papacy, a true Church of Christ in Rome, till our separation from them.

6 From this true Church (I say not pure Church) in Rome, our first Reformers had their Ordination, which was in the es­sentials true, and from Christ.

7 The Pope of Rome, hath been Antichrist, I believe about a thousand yeares, that is so long as he hath usurped power o­ver all Churches.

8 There was a true Ministeriall Church in Rome, when we separated from the Papacy.

Ja. Cranford.

If no Ministerial Church in Rome, since the Pope was An­tichrist, but what was from the power of the Pope, then there was no such Church in Rome when you separated.

But there was no Ministeriall Church in Rome since the Pope was Antichrist, but what was from the Power of the Pope,

Therefore there was no such Church in Rome when you separated.

If the Pope were the root of Antichrist, Then all Mi­nisteriall Officers from him were Antichristian.

But the Pope was the Root of Antichrist.

Therefore all Ministeriall Officers from him were Anti­christian as Branches.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Consequence. Though the Pope were the Root of Antichrist, yet all Ministerial Officers under him were not Antichristian.

Dr. Chamb. then mentioned Mat. 7.16, 17, 18. But there being a disorderly discourse, he argued thus:

If all power derived from the Pope acknowledged his [Page 13] power, as a power over all Churches, then they were all Antichristian.

But all power derived from the Pope, acknowledged the Popes power as a power over all Churches.

Therefore they were all Antichristian.

Mr. Cranf. then fell into discourse againe, and said, That the Romane Church at the time when Luther separated, was a true Church.

Dr. Chamb. offered to prove, it was then no true Church.

Where there were no true Sacraments, there was no true Church.

But in the Church of Rome when Luther separated, there were no true Sacraments.

Therefore then there was no true Church.

The Minor was denyed. That in the Church of Rome when Luther separated, there were true Sacraments.

Where there was no true Baptisme, there were no true Sacraments.

But in the Church of Rome, when Luther separated there was no true Baptisme.

Therefore in the Church of Rome, when Luther separa­ted, there were no true Sacraments.

Where it was not administred on the true subject, there was no true Baptisme.

But in the Church of Rome, when Luther separated, Bap­tisme was not administred on the true subjects.

Therefore in the Church of Rome, when Luther sepa­rated, there was no true Baptisme.

Mr. Cranf. denyed the Minor, which was to affirme, That in the Church of Rome when Luther separated, Baptisme was administred on the true Subjects.

They that a [...]red [...] no [...] on Believers and Repent­ers, admi [...]red [...] the true subjects.

But the Ch [...]h of [...]me when Luther separated, did [Page 14] not administer it on Believers and Repenters.

Therefore they did not administer it on the true subjects.

They that administer it on Children, administer it not on Believers and Repenters:

But the Church of Rome, when Luther separated, admi­nistred it to Children,

Therefore they did not administer it on Believers and Repenters.

Mr. Cranf. denyed the Major.

Dr. Chamb. asked whether Children could believe and repent.

Mr. Cranf. answered they had Faith and Repentance in their Parents.

But he denyed the Major, because, though the Church of Rome did administer Baptisme on Children supposing them a false subject, yet they might administer it on o­thers also: And might administer it both on true and false, and the administration on the false, did not hin­der, but it might be administred on the true also.

Hereupon Dr. Chamb. undertook to prove, that they did administer it to none but false, by the Syllogisme fol­lowing.

They that onely administer Baptisme to no believers or mis-believers, to no repenters or mis-repenters, admi­nister it onely to the false subject.

But the Church of Rome administer it onely to no belie­vers or mis-believers, to no repenters or mis-repenters. As Children and Romane Proselites.

Therefore to none but false subjects.

Here Dr. Chamb. was desired to return to the first Questi­on, and so he proceeded to this Argument following out of 2 Cor. 11.20.

They that bring the flock into bondage, or devour them, or take of them, or exalt themselves, or smite them on the face, are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

But Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) doe some or all of these,

[Page 15]

Therefore Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Mi­nisters are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf. denyed both, but desired Dr. Chamb. rather to prove the Major. Wherein Mr. Cranf. was to hold, that they who brought the flock into bondage, or devour them, or take of them, or exalt themselves, or smite them on the face, are the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

This was thought somewhat strange, being the Major were the very words of the Text.

They that are Fooles are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ:

But they that bring the flock into bondage, or devoure them, or take of them, or smite them on the face are fooles:

Therefore they that bring the flock into bondage, or devoure them, or take of them, or smite them on the face, are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Whereat Dr. Chamb. professeth he was not a little start­led, that Mr. Cranford. should allow fooles to be the Mini­sters of Jesus Christ. For though the Ministers of Jesus Christ may be sometimes accounted fooles, yet he could not imagine that fooles should be accounted Ministers of Jesus Christ, but this Syllogisme followed.

They that are not Qualified as, 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. are no Ministers of Jesus Christ.

But fooles are not quallified as, 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1.

Therefore they are no Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf. here was pleased to confirm the Text by way of restraint onely to the wicked foole, though the quallificati­ons require a vindication from Idiotisme also. As (Vers. 2.) [...]. and Vers. 4. and 6. of 1 Tim. 3. and Vers. 9. of Tit. 1.

And therefore Mr. Cranf. affirmed, that men may be wicked, yea false, and yet the true Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Whereupon Dr. Chamb. said, it was true that the Devils themselves in some sence may be said to be the Ministers of [Page 16] Christ in executing his judgments, and all the wicked also in such a large sence, which if that were it which Mr. Cranf. con­tended for, it were granted him. Whereupon Mr. Cranford ( [...]ronically) put off his hat, and made a legg, and said, we thank you Mr. Doctor, we thank you. Dr. Chamb. with the same pleasantnesse bad him, much good might it do him.

But said he, do you allow wicked men to be Presbyterian-Ministers?

No, said Mr. Cranf, we would hinder them, and forbid them.

Then you would forbid the true Ministers of Jesus Christ, (said Dr. Chamb.) by your own saying.

I said no such matter, (said Mr. Cranf.)

You said, that true Ministers of Christ might be wicked (said Dr. Chamb.)

Said Mr. Cranf. They cease to be Ministers of Christ when we forbid them.

Then, till then (said Dr. Chamb.) you affirme they are so.

Yea, (said Mr. Cranf.)

Then Dr. Chamb. appealed to the Auditory.

But (said Dr. Chamb.) why do you not forbid them?

That is our grief, (said Mr. Cranf.) we would, but have no power.

Ministers of Christ want not Power.

But Presbyterian-Ministers want Power,

Therefore they are no Ministers of Christ.

Mr. Cranf. answered, Habent Potestatem, non Potentiam, which was left to those that could cut a thred between them.

The third Argument was from Mark, 9.39. and Luke 9. vers. 49

They, who forbid what Christ hath commanded not to be forbidden, are no true Ministers of Jesus Christ.

But Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) forbid what Christ hath commanded not to be for­bidden,

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Mini­sters) [Page 17] are no true Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf. denyed the Major, which was to affirme, that they, who forbid what Christ hath commanded not to be for­bidden, are the true Ministers of Jesus Christ: and instan­ced Gal. 2. and Act. 11. Which Dr. Chamb. referred to the Auditory. Whereupon Mr. Sute was pleased to side with Mr. Cranf. in the Quotations. But Dr Chamb. asked, where any command of Christ was there forbidden? For though Peter were reproved in both places: yet neither Peter, nor the A­postles, did there forbid any of the commands of Christ. The Apostles (indeed) did examine Peter about his going unto the Gentiles, but upon Peters Relation, were so farre from forbid­ding, that they held their peace, and gloryfied God. Act. 11. vers. 18.

The time being somewhat late, that meeting broke up, ending in Prayer. And Mr. Cranf. appointed the next meeting on the sixth of April, 1652.

The Third meeting was on the Sixth of APRIL, 1652.

AFter Prayer, Mr. Cranf. made a Repetition (memoriter) of what had past, wherein ma­ny things were spoken different from what had been said: Whereupon Dr. Chamb. was occasioned to read what had past, that so Mr. Cranford's mistakes might be rectified. In the Repetition (by way of Justification of the successive Ordination from Rome) Mr. Cranf. decla­red, that the Oath which every Minister took in Ordination under the Pope, was, To preach the Truth according to the Gospel. Where men may see how uncertaine that Religion is that is founded upon humane Oathes, and Protestations.

The Question was as formerly.

Whether Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) be the Ministers of Jesus Christ?

They that forbid what Christ hath commanded not to be forbidden, are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) forbid what Christ hath commanded not to be for­bidden,

Therefore Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Mini­sters) are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf. said the Major was Nonsence.

Dr. Chamb. appealed to the Auditory.

Then Mr. Cranf. denyed the Major and Minor. The Ma­jor [Page 19] if it were affirmed, that Presbyterian Ministers, did pur­posely and malitiously forbid, what Christ hath commanded not to be forbidden.

The Minor, if with restrictions mentioned, to wit, that Presbyterian Ministers do not forbid any one in Ecclesia con­stituenda or coufusa.

Dr. Chamb. would not urge the Major, as that Presbyterian Ministers did purposely and malitiously, therefore, forbid any thing because it was the command of Christ, though igno­rance it self doth not excuse a toto, sed a tanto. For 2 Thes. 1.8. the vengeance is on them also that knew not God. And di­vers other places.

They that forbid Preaching by true Ministers of Jesus Christ in a true Church, forbid what Christ hath com­manded not to be forbidden.

But Ministers of London (Presbyterian Ministers) for­bid Preaching by true Ministers of Christ in a true Church

Therefore Ministers of London (Presbyterian Mi­nisters) forbid, what Christ hath commanded not to be forbidden.

Saith Mr. Cranf. you shall never prove the Minor whilest your head is on your shoulders.

Dr. Chamb. replied, I hope my head may continue on my shoulders without offence to any, and yet I shall prove the Minor.

They that forbid gifted men Ordained by a true Church to Preach in a true Church, forbid Preaching by true Ministers in a true Church.

But Ministers of London (Presbyterian Ministers) for­bid gifted men, Ordained by a true Church, to Preach in a true Churh.

Therefore Ministers of London (Presbyterian Mini­sters) forbid Preaching by true Ministers, in a true Church.

Mr. Cranf. denyed the Major, if in Ecclesia Fidelium:

The Minor, if in Ecclesia Organica.

[Page 20]

Dr. Chamb. here took the liberty to make a short discourse concerning a Church, and that both in regard that Mr. Cranf. did constantly run into divers discourses between several Syl­logysmes, therefore Dr. Chamb. might take that liberty once, and because that now there was such an occasion given to ex­plain that word which hath occasioned so many great con­troversies, and did now necessarily require an explanation, as might appeare by Mr. Cranford's distinguishing upon the word.

Therefore in the first place Dr Chamb. shewed, that the word ought to be explained from 1 Cor. 14.11. And that for want of explaining this word, and the word Bishop, and Presbyter, and Deacon, and the like, so many Barbarous Warrs and Actions have been in the world.

The word Church is from the Saxon, Kirk, as the Scots yet pronounce it. It is thought to be derived from the Greek word [...], a derivative from [...]. (Lord) as dedicated to the Lord. And the place where the Lords of the Senate did meet in Athens, was called [...] (a Court Comitia.) But Church amongst us, is supposed the translation of the Originall word [...]. So that Church should signifie to us, what [...] doth signifie to the Grecians. Now [...], from [...] & [...], (to call forth) doth signifie a company of People called to­gether from among other People and so, any Assembly what­soever, that are called together, as the Interpreters themselves have plainly declared, by interpreting the word in Act. 19.25. an Assembly, though it were not to the worship of God. And whether it were a lawfull assembly, ( vers. 39.) or unlawfull ( vers. 32 41.) But by way of excellency, because no Assem­bly so worthy as that which is called together to the worship of God: Therefore it is ordinarily taken for such, wherein we must also distinguish between the Church of Christ, and a Church of Christ. The Church comprehends all the faith­full Saints from the beginning of the World to the end. As Ephes. 1.22. and 3.21. and 5.23. &c. Col. 1.18.24. and 1 Cor. 12.28. Heb. 12.23.

A Church of Christ also is taken for any Church of Christ respectively, as Mat. 18.17. and 1 Cor. 14. and 4.17. &c. [Page 21] 1 Cor. 7.17. and 11.16.15.9. Philip. 3.6.

And it hath also severall other Appellations, as House, City, Body, Spouse, and Family, or definitively either: And that an uncertain providentiall Assembly or meeting; as Mat. 18.20. Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in the name of Christ. In which sense Mr. Cranf. distinguisheth it, Ecclesia Fidelium. Or more setled and constant, which likewise are distinguisted, by Times, Nations, or Places.

Distinguished by Times, we read, Act. 7.38. the Church in the Wildernesse.

And, by Nations, Rom. 16.4. all the Churches of the Gentiles.

By Places, as Countries, (α) Kingdomes, (β) Provin­ces. (γ)

By Countrys, (α) 1 Cor. 16.19. Church of Asia.

And, by Kingdomes, (β) 2 Cor. 8.1. of Macedonia.

And, by Provinces, (γ) as Galatia. 1 Cor. 16.1. Gal. 1.2. and Judea. Gal. 1.22.

Citys of Corinth, 1 Cor. 12. and 2 Cor. 1.1. Ephesus. Smyr­na, Pergamus, Thyatyra, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea. Revel. 1.11.

And Houses, as Aquila and Prisscilla, 1 Cor. 16.19. Rom. 16.3, 5. and Nymphas, Col. 4.15.

The Church of Christ is then, and so long, the Church of Christ, as she saith, and doth, what Christ gave her to say and doe, even as Christ himself, John, 7.17. and 8.26, 28. and 12.5. and 14.10, 24. and 5.19.30. And when she saith, or doth otherwise, she speaketh, or playeth the Harlot in that particular.

By Organical was meant a definite setled Church of Christ, compleated with Officers, as a body with members 1 Cor. 12.12.

Here Dr. Chamb. being called upon to prove, that Presby­ters did forbid Ministers of a true Church.

He proved it by this Syllogisme.

They that forbid Ministers Ordained by the Presbytery of Baptised Churches forbid Ministers of a true Church.

But Ministers of London (Presbyterian Ministers) for­bid [Page 22] Ministers Ordained by the Presbytery of Baptised Churches.

Therefore Ministers of London (Prebyterian Ministers) forbid Ministers of a true Church.

Mr. Cranf. denyed the Major, because no true Presbytery, and because no true Church: but desired that the last should be proved.

They that have the true Marks of a true Church, are a true Church.

But Baptised Churches have the true Marks of a true Church,

Therefore they are a true Church.

Mr. Cranf. denyed the Minor, which was thus proved.

They that have true Preaching of the Word, and true Administration of the Sacraments, have the true Marks of a true Church:

But Baptised Churches have true Preaching of the Word, and true Administration of Sacraments.

Therefore they have the true Marks of a true Church.

Mr. Cranf. denyed the Minor. That they neither had true Preaching of the Word, nor true Administration of the Sa­cramets.

Dr. Chamb. asked which he should prove?

Mr. Cranf. bad him prove the true Administration of Sacraments.

They that have the true Administration of Baptisme and the Lords Supper, have the true Administration of Sacraments.

But Baptized Churches have the true Administration of Baptisme and the Lords Supper:

Therefore Baptized Churches have the true Administra­tion of the Sacraments.

Mr. Cranf. denyed the Mi. but bad him prove Baptisme.

They that have the Administration of Baptisme in the true manner, and on the true Subject, have the true Ad­ministration of Baptisme.

But Baptized Churches have the Administration of [Page 23] Baptisme in the true manner and on the true Subjects.

Therefore Baptized Churches have the true Admini­stration of Baptisme.

Mr. Cranf. denyed the Mi. Dr. Chamb. asked whether he should prove first the manner, or the subject? Mr. Cranf. said any, which he would. Then (said Dr. Chamb.) First Ile prove the manner and then the Subject.

They that Administer Baptisme in the same Manner as it was Administred unto Christ Matth. 13.16. And as Philip Administred it to the Eunuch, (Act. 8.38.) have the true manner of Administration of Baptisme.

Mr. Cranf. cryed out, and some with him, prove the sub­ject for that is desired by some here.

They that Administer Baptisme on Beleevers and Re­penters, Administer Baptisme on the true Subjects.

But Baptized Churches Administer Baptisme on Repen­ters and Believers.

Therefore Baptized Churches Administer it on the true Subject.

They that Administer Baptisme upon those that confesse their Sins, and professe their Faith, Administer Bap­tisme on the true Subject.

But Baptized Churches Administer it upon those that confesse their Sins, and professe their Faith.

Therefore Baptized Churches Administer Baptisme on the true Subject.

Mr. Cranf. denyed the Minor, and said, they do not Bap­tize such as do confesse their Sins, and professe their Faith.

Dr. Cham. said, that might be attested by any that ever were present at their Baptisme. Besides it were against their very Principles if they should not do so.

Saith Mr. Cranf. I say they do not Baptize Believers and Repenters.

Saith Dr. Chamb. now you go back to the former Syllo­gisme.

Mr. Cranf. said, they do not Baptize Believers and Re­penters, but Renegadoes.

[Page 24]

Dr. Chamb. said, I gave no ill language, but used the words of the Scripture, and I hope you will not be angry with the language of the holy Ghost, when I must use it in argument.

Renegado is language of Scripture saith Mr. Cranf.

Where said Dr. Chamberlen? Mr. Cranf. said because it sig­nified Apostate. Said Dr. Cha. Then why did you not rather use that Word.

The debate here made Dr. Chamb. forget to take notice how in denying the Baptisme of Believers and Repenters, Mr. Cranf. denyed the Conclusion. But he proceeded to prove that they did Baptize Believers and Repenters.

They that baptize such as shall be saved, baptize belie­vers and repenters.

Therefore they baptized believers and repenters.

Mr Cranf. denyed the Major.

Dr. Chamb. urged Mark, 16.16. Whosoever believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.

Mr. Cranf. denyed it.

Dr. Chamb. replied, Contra Principia negantem, non est dispu­tandum. Saith Mr. Cranf. you are to prove it.

They that baptize such as confesse with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in their heart that God hath raised him from the dead, ( Rom. 10.) baptize such as shall be saved.

But baptized Churches, baptize such as confesse with their mouth, the Lord Jesus, and believe with their heart that God hath raised him from the dead.

Therefore baptized Churches baptize such as shall be saved.

Mr. Cr. and some of his Party began to deride and say this was in gyro, idem, per idem. All that are saved, confesse and believe. All that confesse and believe, are saved.

Said Dr. Chamb. it is the greater truth in being reciprocal, according to all the rules of truth. [...].

With this the Company seemed to acquiesce, in continua­tion [Page 25] of this promiscuous discourse. Mr. Cranf used the word Renegado againe, and said, that baptized Churches, baptized such as denyed the Faith, not such as professed the Faith, there­fore we were all Renegadoes.

Dr. Chamb. replied I shall prove you so.

Mr. Cranf. bid him do.

They that practise, what they neither have command nor example for, practise what they should not.

But you who sprinkle Infants, practise what you neither have command nor example for.

Mr. Cranf. cried out, is this to prove us Renegadoes. Make your Conclusion.

Said Dr. Chamb. I was loath to use words of provocation, and that are not written. but Mr Cranf. continuing in derision, Dr. Chamb. said then Ile prove you Renegadoes.

They that speak Lyes in Hipocrisie, are Renegadoes:

But you speak Lyes in Hypocrisie.

Here the meeting broke up abruptly.

The last meeting between Mr. Cranford, and Dr. Chamberlen, at Mr. Webbs house, at Bartholomew Lane end, was on the 13. of April, 1652.

THe Question was still, Whether Ministers of London (Presbyterian Ministers) were the Ministers of Jesus Christ?

Mr. Cranf. (as before) Respondent.

Dr. Chamb. Opponent.

After Prayer (as formerly) the Dispute be­gan in writing, being so agreed the time before.

They that are Ministers of Jesus Christ, are Ordained by Jesus Christ.

But Presbyterian Ministers of London are not Ordained by Jesus Christ:

Therefore they are not Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf. Negatur Minor.

The Ministers are Ordained by Jesus Christ, Mediately.

They that are Ordained by Antichrist, are not Ordain­ed by Jesus Christ.

But Presbyterian Ministers of London are Ordained by Antichrist.

Therefore they are not Ordained by Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf Negatur Minor.

They that are Ordained by the Pope, within these thou­sand yeares, are Ordained by Antichrist.

But Presbyterian Ministers of London are Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares.

Therefore they are Ordained by Antichrist.

Mr. Cranf. Negatur Minor.

They that are ordained by those who were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares, are Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares.

But Presbyterian Ministers of London, are Ordained by those who were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares.

Therefore they are Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares.

Mr. Cranf. Negatur Minor.

They who were Ordained by the Bishops of England, and their Successours within these thousand yeares, are Ordained by those who were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares.

But Presbyterian Ministers of London are Ordained by Bishops of England and their Successors within these thousand yeares.

Therefore they are Ordained by those who were Or­dained by the Pope within these thousand yeares.

Mr. Cranf. Negatur Major.

If they were Ordained by the Power, or Ministers of the Pope, &c. then they were Ordained by the Pope &c.

But they were Ordained by the Power, or Ministers of the Pope within these thousand yeares.

Therefore they were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. Min.

If the Bishops of England within these thousand years, were not Ordained by the Power nor Ministers of the Pope, within these thousand yeares. Then there were [Page 28] some Bishops in King Henry 7. and K. Hen. 8. dayes neither Ordained by the Pope, nor Ministers of the Pope, within these thousand yeares.

But there were no such Bishops in K. Hen. 7. nor King Hen. 8. dayes.

Therefore they were Ordained by the Power, or Mini­sters, of the Pope within these thousand yeares.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. Mi.

Mr. Cranf. do you prove there were none.

If there were any such, then either they were allowed, or disalowed.

But there were neither any allowed, nor disallowed, that were such.

Therefore there were none such.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. Minor. None of the allowed Ministers were Ordained by the Pope.

If the Pope had power at that time to place, and displace whom he pleased, then they were Ordained by the Pope.

But the Pope had power to place and displace, whom he pleased.

Therefore they were Ordained by the Pope.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. consequentia, & Minor est falsa.

Dr. Chamb. Power of Ordination, you grant, is Approba­tion and Imposition of hands.

If their placing and displacing, were a consequence of their Ordination, then the consequence is true.

But their placing and displacing, was a consequence of their Ordination.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. consequentia

If the Pope had power of placing and displacing of Bishops, then he had power of their Ordination.

But the Pope had power, of placing and displacing of Bishops.

If placing and displacing of Bishops, be greater then their Ordination, then the Pope who did place and displace did al­so Ordaine.

Mr. Cranford, Negatur consequentia.

[Page 62]

The Civil Magistrate may remove or displace Ministers, but may not Ordaine Ministers.

To place and displace, is not greater then to Ordaine.

If what the Pope did, he did it as an Officer of the Church, and it was so publickly acknowledged, then the conse­quence is true.

But what the Pope did, he did it as an Officer of the Church, and it was so publickly acknowledged.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. consequentia.

Though the Pope had power to do it, he did not do it.

Some discourses, as betwwen all the rest of the latter Syl­logisme, interrupted the clear dispute, and then Dr. Chamb. followed with this argument to the discourse that was.

If all the particular parts and faculties of the Church of England, were under the power and Ministry of the Pope of Rome, then Bishops were Ordained by the power of the Pope of Rome.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. consequentia.

If so, then Ordination is no part or faculty of the Church.

But Ordination is a part.

Ne. consequentia, Minor etiam est falsa.

The Church of Rome though it were Ulcerous, yet was a true Church of Christ, as a man is a man though full of Ulcers.

Truth came out of the Church of Rome. The Scriptures that have been conveyed through the Church of Rome, are true Scriptures.

Dr. Chamb. denyed, that Truth came out of the Church of Rome, or that the Scriptures were conveyed through the Ulce­rous Church of Rome. What is of their conveyance is not true.

Mr. Cranf. often acknowledged, that the Church of Rome was Ulcerous: and Dr. Chamb. (upon it) replied, that we may then take up the lamentation of the Prophet Isa. 1.5, 6. From the sole of the foot, even to the head, there is no soundnesse, &c.

But can a clean thing come out of an uncleane. Job. 14.4. Doth a fountaine send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter. Jer. 3.11, 12. Do men gather Grapes of Thornes, or Figgs of Thistles, Mat. 7.16, 17, 18. Luke, 6.43, 44. Either [Page 28] make the Tree good, and the Fruit good, or the Tree cor­rupt, and the Fruit corrupt, Mat. 12.33.

Many other things were spoken on both sides, which could not be written down, and (indeed) this Dispute was the most disorderly, because some things were written and some not: By reason whereof, it is probable, that both Mr. Cranf. and Dr. Chamb. might have their thoughts diverted from a clear pursute of their Dispute, and Dr. Chamb. at this time was so ill, that he was scarce able to speak for Hoarsnesse. Yet the Arguments will sufficiently shew, what might fully have been proved in the matter. And many other Arguments were pro­vided: All which may hereafter be mentioned if there be oc­casion. They that are desirous of Truth, may hereby be whetted on to a further enquiry, if they be not satisfied: They that are not desirous, but of itching eares (2 Tim. 4.3.) this is too much for. He that is of God heareth Gods Word. John, 8.47. and 10.27.

Something may chance be further brought to memory, if Mr. Cranf. or his Party shall think good to adde their Col­lections also.

Upon misreports of these Disputes, these fol­lowing Letters were occasioned: which lo­sing their place in the beginning, are thus added for the better manifestation of the occasion of the Presse.